Paging Dr. Von Pein
Herbert Blenner
I have three questions.
The following graphic shows the anterior-posterior X-ray of President
Kennedy's head. Why does the title of the X-ray, "Figure 17 -
Photograph of the anterior- posterior X-ray of the skull ( autopsy X-
ray No. 1 ) , showing the occipital defect and a small missile
fragment" refer to an injury that you deny?
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/xray1f1.jpg
Why is the transmittance of the right side of this X-ray consistent
with big holes in the right-front and the right-rear of the head?
Finally why the Fox Photo F1 show intact scalp overlying the position
of the large hole in the front-rear of the head?
Please mark your invoice "Route to RB." This notation will expedite
delivery to my Recycle Bin.
cdddraftsman
If a rifle and 3 spent shell casings were found behind the location
were JFK was hit and fragments were found in the forward compartments
of the Limo what more do you need ? You can dispence with all the rest
of the fluff in-between .
tl
Herbert Blenner
>
> - Show quoted text -
Translation. Tow Lowry has no explanation for the Fox photographs and
X-rays that documents how Bethesda altered the external and internal
appearances of the body. Now go play with your fluff some else.
Herbert
David Von Pein
>>> "The following graphic shows the anterior-posterior X-ray of President Kennedy's head [http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/xray1f1.jpg]. Why does the title of the X-ray, "Figure 17 - Photograph of the anterior-posterior X-ray of the skull (autopsy X-ray No. 1), showing the occipital defect and a small missile fragment" refer to an injury that you deny?" <<<
It doesn't refer to an injury that I deny at all. The caption
accompanying that particular X-ray photo (Figure 17, which is located
in the House Select Committee volumes at "7 HSCA 109") is referring to
the small ENTRY wound in the "occipital" region of John Kennedy's
head. It's not referring to any kind of a large, gaping EXIT wound in
the occipital region of the head.
That fact becomes quite clear when reading the text that surrounds
Figure #17 in HSCA Volume 7 (on pages 109 and 110 of Volume 7, which
are linked below):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0060a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0060b.htm
And please note how, on page 110, the caption used for a computer-
enhanced version of the LATERAL X-ray (autopsy X-ray #2) utilizes
several of the EXACT SAME WORDS that are also used in the caption for
Figure 17 (which is a picture of the A-P X-ray) -- i.e., "occipital
defect" and "adjacent missile fragment".
I'll readily admit that, at first blush, the A-P autopsy X-ray shown
in Figure 17 seems to give the false impression that the entire right
side of JFK's head was missing (from front to back). But when we go to
page #111 of HSCA Volume 7, we get to see a better, more-detailed view
of that A-P skull X-ray (via computer enhancement).
And we can easily see that the enhanced A-P X-ray aligns itself very
nicely with the lateral (enhanced) X-ray of the right side of
President Kennedy's head (i.e., the BACK of JFK's head is STILL THERE
in both computer-enhanced autopsy X-rays):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
>>> "Why is the transmittance of the right side of this X-ray consistent with big holes in the right-front and the right-rear of the head?" <<<
See explanation above. Figure 17 is somewhat misleading. This computer-
assisted version of that very same X-ray makes things much clearer:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061a.htm
>>> "Finally why [does] the Fox Photo F1 show intact scalp overlying the position of the large hole in the front-rear of the head?" <<<
This autopsy photo shows no such thing. You're interpreting it
incorrectly:
Herbert Blenner
> >>> "The following graphic shows the anterior-posterior X-ray of President Kennedy's head [http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/xray1f1.jpg]. Why does the title of the X-ray, "Figure 17 - Photograph of the anterior-posterior X-ray of the skull (autopsy X-ray No. 1), showing the occipital defect and a small missile fragment" refer to an injury that you deny?" <<<
>
> It doesn't refer to an injury that I deny at all. The caption
> accompanying that particular X-ray photo (Figure 17, which is located
> in the House Select Committee volumes at "7 HSCA 109") is referring to
> the small ENTRY wound in the "occipital" region of John Kennedy's
> head. It's not referring to any kind of a large, gaping EXIT wound in
> the occipital region of the head.
I extend my apologies for mistaking you for a member of the cowlick
club.
>
> That fact becomes quite clear when reading the text that surrounds
> Figure #17 in HSCA Volume 7 (on pages 109 and 110 of Volume 7, which
> are linked below):
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
>
> And please note how, on page 110, the caption used for a computer-
> enhanced version of the LATERAL X-ray (autopsy X-ray #2) utilizes
> several of the EXACT SAME WORDS that are also used in the caption for
> Figure 17 (which is a picture of the A-P X-ray) -- i.e., "occipital
> defect" and "adjacent missile fragment".
The text that you cite describes the cowlick entry as the "defect in the
skull and the inward beveling" whose location corresponds to the wound "in
the upper back of the scalp. . . ." However, this text appears below
Figure 18 entitled, "Photograph of the lateral X-ray of the skull showing
occipital defect with beveling and adjacent missile fragment." How do you
explain this duality?
>
> I'll readily admit that, at first blush, the A-P autopsy X-ray shown
> in Figure 17 seems to give the false impression that the entire right
> side of JFK's head was missing (from front to back). But when we go to
> page #111 of HSCA Volume 7, we get to see a better, more-detailed view
> of that A-P skull X-ray (via computer enhancement).
You forgot to mention that the enhanced A-P X-ray shows a transmissivity
comparable with the transmissivity at the cowlick site but at
approximately the same transverse plane as the occipital defect.
>
> And we can easily see that the enhanced A-P X-ray aligns itself very
> nicely with the lateral (enhanced) X-ray of the right side of
> President Kennedy's head (i.e., the BACK of JFK's head is STILL THERE
> in both computer-enhanced autopsy X-rays):
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
>
The enhanced lateral X-ray shows bone missing from the front-right
quadrant of the skull and skull fragments covering the top-right of the
head. So how do you reconcile this X-ray with the HSCA explanation of the
Harper fragment that shows fragments blowing out of the top- right of the
head?
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_
0068a.htm
> >>> "Why is the transmittance of the right side of this X-ray consistent with big holes in the right-front and the right-rear of the head?" <<<
>
> See explanation above. Figure 17 is somewhat misleading. This computer-
> assisted version of that very same X-ray makes things much clearer:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
Indeed, the enhanced A-P X-ray clearly shows two transmissivities, one at
the cowlick and the other at the occipital defect. Do you think this was
the motivation for adding the star distraction to the enhancement?
>
> >>> "Finally why [does] the Fox Photo F1 show intact scalp overlying the position of the large hole in the front-rear of the head?" <<<
>
> This autopsy photo shows no such thing. You're interpreting it
> incorrectly:
>
> http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/009b.%20JFK%20AUTOPSY%...
Actually, I threw a Specterism and you took as swing at it. Front and rear
are mutually exclusive hemispheres and do not have an intersection to form
a front-rear quadrant. Obviously your obsession with the large hole in the
back of the head distracts you from what others are saying.
Herbert
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/9a2649c197a796b8
>>> "I extend my apologies for mistaking you for a member of the cowlick
club." <<<
Oh, I'm definitely a member of the "cowlick club". The entry wound was
most certainly located high on JFK's head, near the cowlick, just as the
HSCA determined.
The term "occipital" in Figures 17 and 18 of HSCA Volume #7, however, is
still referring (obviously) to the BACK-OF-THE-HEAD ENTRY WOUND NEAR THE
COWLICK. That location is, indeed, technically a bit above the
"occipital".
But the term "occipital" (as used in those HSCA exhibits) is positively
referring to the bullet's ENTRY hole at the back of the head. That's
obvious by the verbiage we find in the caption for Figure 18, which says:
"occipital defect with beveling". Plus, there are the words "inward
beveling" that appear just below Figure 18 on that same page of Volume 7
(page 110):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0060b.htm
Therefore, what other head wound (with references to "beveling" and
"inward beveling") could the HSCA possibly be referring to on page 110 of
Volume 7 if not the ONE AND ONLY bullet wound of entrance in the back of
Jack Kennedy's cranium?
Try again, Herbert. You've lost this round.